> Bull. a) resources are only as limited as the inefficiencies of
> socialist governments make them.
Last I heard, resources were limited.
> b) current production efficiency and
> capacity here in the US are such that every person could live quite a
> nice life. As it is, only about a third of the population or so actually
And yet many live in (abject) poverty; this supports your position?
> c) food production, with spoilage, would provide a 3500 calorie
> diet to every person on earth if the socialist governments got out of
> the way and let their people acheive.
We are talking about the planet Earth, yes? The food's already available;
it's just that some people have it (more than they need), and some don't.
There should be made a further distinction here between forms of socialism.
World System theory makes a rough (maybe quite distinct) division between
countries in what it calls the Capitalist World System. The two types are
Core and Peripheral countries (there are also in-between countries termed
the Semi-periphery, but that's not so important here).
The Core countries are the wealthy capitalist countries, where industry is,
where the wealth is. The Peripheral countries are the poor countries (the
third world), where industry and wealth is not. There is a history of
centuries of the core countries of the world dragging natural resources out
of the periphery, and using them internally; wealth moves out of the
periphery and into the core.
The distinction between forms of socialism then is between core country
socialism (really semi-periphery, since socialist countries are not part of
the capitalist core) and socialism in the periphery - basically, between
eastern-european socialism and third world socialism (I'm not sure where
China fits in here).
Many third world countries may call themselves socialist, but are just your
common or garden tyrranies when you get down to it. Similarly there is an
idea of substantive and formal democracy; throughout the third world you
find countries which call themselves democratic (and capitalist), but are
nothing more than military dictatorships. I would suggest calling both forms
of political/economic system simply dictatorships, because that's how they
So back to the point above... when you talk about socialist governments
"getting in the way", there is a large class of countries, mostly poor, that
call themselves socialist but are nothing of the sort; they should be
treated seperately in any argument re the above.
However, there is much to discuss regarding third world, or peripheral,
countries, and their utter exploitation by multinationals and foreign
governments wielding massive amounts of foreign capital (& foreign debt). It
is the modern colonialism. It involves the core stripping the wealth from
the periphery, it renders their economies massively impoverished in the long
term, and it means that "if the socialist governments got out of the way and
let their people acheive", the result would be sweet f*ck all.
Note that peripheral countries cannot opt out of this lock, or fight their
way out; when they try to opt out, they usually go socialist (capitalism
we'rnt treetin em so gud) and are reviled and economically sanctioned by the
core, sometimes attacked; when they try to fight their way out, they are
squashed like puny bugs by certain "world police" that shall remain nameless
> NOTE: starvation only happens in
> socialist and econimically authoritarian countries.
hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo the pain hoo hoo hoo hoo oh I forgot, america has
dumpsters where you can put the spoiling food from the supermarkets
> Demanding that a small minority do all the productive work, confiscating
> half their production as 'taxes', so a majority can live in sloth is
> what is really greedy and inconsiderate. Its modern slavery.
So quit your job and bludge. Go on. Better to die on your feet than to live
on your knees, and all that stuff.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:26 MDT